Home Help Search Members Register
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
Author Topic: For Those Who Like Talking About Politics  (Read 25074 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
dhex
Moderator
Posts: 863



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #15 on: January 28, 2010, 03:34:16 PM »

recent observations:

a) saw 20 seconds of sotu: i like how they all hated tarp and clapped about hating tarp and totally didn't support it or anything before it became vastly unpopular. "superjesus black reagan" indeed.

b) it's weird that amid shouts of the death of democracy and corporate personhood and other exciting half-understood penumbras, the core of citizens united was that the government stopped the airing of a video criticizing a politician, which is ok because something something something corporations.

edit: i shouldn't be surprised as per the first item, but i am still able to be slightly shocked at how brazen he and they and all them can be. as per the second, well, the big ha ha in this is that unions will come out ahead as far as actual influence. i mean, dur. lobbying is already the bread and butter of so many big business/big gubmint deals; direct advocacy is far less useful for a ketchup company than seiu.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2010, 03:38:21 PM by dhex » Logged
dhex
Moderator
Posts: 863



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #16 on: January 28, 2010, 03:48:05 PM »

what i am a little shocked about, but just a little, is the "this will allow foreigners to control the government" routine as well, as if a) this isn't already going to be the case when applicable and b) when some republican says the same thing about the mexican government sending "hordes" across the border to establish a bulkwark, it's immediately seen for the scardey-cat nationalism it is.
Logged
dhex
Moderator
Posts: 863



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #17 on: February 03, 2010, 09:26:45 PM »

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/corporation-says-it-will-run-for-congress/

dear idiots: you're really going to help the government restrict speech based upon the public's ignorance of the difference between a legal and a natural person? really? fucking cocksticks.

edit: for fun, count the # of times you hear the phrase "union personhood".
Logged
dmauro
Moderator
Posts: 915



View Profile
« Reply #18 on: February 03, 2010, 09:35:32 PM »

But that's not the Onion... :?
Logged
FortNinety
Administrator
Posts: 2269


FortNinety
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #19 on: February 03, 2010, 11:03:16 PM »

Seriously...

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/supreme_court_allows
Logged
dmauro
Moderator
Posts: 915



View Profile
« Reply #20 on: February 04, 2010, 11:39:28 AM »

Man, I am so out of the loop now that I'm not always on nytimes.com to kill time at work. I can't believe I missed this.
Logged
dhex
Moderator
Posts: 863



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #21 on: February 17, 2010, 01:40:30 PM »

http://plf.typepad.com/plf/2010/02/this-american-life-on-citizens-united.html

i quibble on his language, but his understanding of this broad cultural split is succinctly put.
Logged
Fitz
Posts: 236



View Profile
« Reply #22 on: February 17, 2010, 11:47:35 PM »

Quote
the notion that it somehow distorts democracy for people who do business in the corporate form to express themselves is rooted in a vaguely idealized notion of what "democracy" means.

Baring corporate action in the political arena does not effect the capacity of individuals involved in corporation on a personal level, unless we're now terming corporations as a medium of expression.

The argument could be made I suppose, but it would be more than a bit creeky.
Logged
dhex
Moderator
Posts: 863



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #23 on: February 18, 2010, 08:51:54 AM »

well, in the case of say the ACLU, the corporation itself is a medium of collective expression by design.
Logged
Fitz
Posts: 236



View Profile
« Reply #24 on: February 18, 2010, 09:50:53 AM »

I think you could easily class them as such, particularly from a sociological vantage point, but I'm not completely sold that the classification fits in a First Amendment sense nor that individual rights transfer to a corporate structure inherently.

And that to some extent is where things get really thorny.  If Speech becomes expanded into all forms of communication essentially any action taken by any individual involving more than just themselves becomes protected. Which on some level I'm vaguely okay with, to the extent that I'd love to see the First Amendment defense for engaging in a bank heist.
Logged
dhex
Moderator
Posts: 863



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #25 on: February 18, 2010, 02:15:26 PM »

i think i see where you're going, and the basic reply (i'll get more into this tonight) is that people don't lose rights by joining an organization. the corporation has legal rights, but no individual rights, which is where the confusion about "corporate personhood" comes into play. (much of it willfully)

legally, the ACLU has certain rights and offers certain protections to its members. (i.e. if someone sues the aclu, their board members aren't on the hook for damages - the organization is.)

in terms of speech being more than just speech (as in talk), speech actions (i.e. holding a sign at a rally, or handing out pamphlets) have existed as a recognized (and protected) form of free speech for some time. (thank you jehovah's witnesses!) the same goes for buying ad space on a billboard, or running ads for a candidate, or publishing a book/pamphlet/website, etc.

at the same time, looking at how the basic text of the first amendment has been ended-around in the past, particularly with the sedition act and ww1 socialist agitators and draft resisters/anti-war personalities (eugene debs comes to mind immediately) shows some of the danger with these asterisked exemptions to speech protections.

i am under no real illusion with this particular scotus that they may have/probably made the correct decision for some of the wrong reasons. (political beliefs rather than a hewing to a general respect for the first amendment, as seen in the bong hits 4 jesus case)
Logged
dhex
Moderator
Posts: 863



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #26 on: April 02, 2010, 10:51:39 AM »

http://news.infoshop.
org/article.php?story=crash-tea-parties

money quote:

Quote
If the tea party movement continues to grow in size and strength there is a big chance they will dominate this country in the near future. If the tea party movement takes over this country they will really hurt poor people by getting rid of social programs like food stamps, unemployment benefits, disability benefits, student aid, free health care, etc. The tea party movement will say these programs must be gotten rid of because hard-working taxpayers cannot afford to pay for these things especially when the economy is in a depression.

what kind of fucking anarchist supports involuntary taxation?

ignorant armies don't always clash at night. these guys deserve each other.
Logged
loopback
Posts: 95



View Profile
« Reply #27 on: April 02, 2010, 04:23:32 PM »

I would say any anarchist who is of the anarcho-*insert term here* school.  Or the ones who believe anarchism leads to social justice, and that in the short term, such things as food stamps, taxes, etc, provide money that can benefit the poor/homeless until such time as The Revolution Comes.

Or something like that, at a guess.
Logged
dhex
Moderator
Posts: 863



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #28 on: April 05, 2010, 12:37:24 PM »

i can dig on pragmatism and related concerns, but labeling ketchup as mustard seems a bit off. Smiley

somewhat related, but not really:

http://charliedavis.blogspot.com/2010/03/liberals-with-guns-scarier-than-tea.html

wherever the fuck the non-paulian wing of the tea partiers were for the past eight years or so aside, it is indeed a bit weird to read someone in the nation writing "When protesters spit on and scream at duly elected representatives of the United States government it is more than act of racism. It is an act of sedition."

but only a bit, since the real narrative is "you're better people than these tea party types, don't worry."
Logged
dhex
Moderator
Posts: 863



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #29 on: April 05, 2010, 04:59:06 PM »

on a slanderous note, i'm now referring to the partiers del tea as "mugwumps", for both historical and burroughsian reasons. Smiley
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.9 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Reflection Theme by [cer]